hr_onboarding_assist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds modest behavioral context by noting that execution is scoped to JWT, tenant, and company, which is useful for understanding authorization boundaries. It does not describe potential side effects, but the annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and there is no contradiction between the description and those hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The first sentence states the action, the second gives essential routing/scope context, and the final section cleanly documents the two parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers routing and parameter semantics. However, it does not explain what the onboarding_assist action actually accomplishes, what kind of objectives it accepts, or how to choose it over sibling HR tools, which is a notable gap for an action-wrapper tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is meaningful even though it does not enumerate possible structured input fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the hr domain agent action `onboarding_assist`.' This makes the primary purpose clear, and the action name hints at HR onboarding assistance. However, it does not differentiate from sibling HR onboarding tools like hr_onboard or hr_employee_hire_onboarding_loop, so it lacks sibling-level distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related HR actions. It explains the routing mechanism ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but never states which scenarios call for onboarding_assist or when an alternative should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.